And for you Ten Commandments fans, there’s always this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7KMC4BfjLc
Bush Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, insisting that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone the right of habeas corpus.
When President Reagan was shot and Vice President Bush was out of town, Secretary of State Al Haig publically stated: “Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State in that order, and should the President decide he wants to transfer the helm to the Vice President, he will do so. He has not done that. As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending return of the Vice President and in close touch with him. If something came up, I would check with him, of course.”
No, the Constitution places the Secretary of State fifth in the order of succession, following the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate.
Haig later tried to explain his statement away by saying that he just meant who was running the operations of the executive branch not describing the order of succession. But he did specifically state that he was talking about an order established by the Constitution and there is no Constitutional text on an order of rank in the executive branch and who gives orders to who. Haig did not outrank Secretary of Defense Weinberger or Attorney General Smith or Chief of Staff Baker, for example, and did not have the authority to give them orders.
He clearly says, “In the last 15 months we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in fifty…seven states, I think one left to go.” And the context confirms that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
I’m not a fan of Palin in the least, but it could be argured that as President of the Senate, the VP is in charge as far as debate goes. In practice, the VP is rarely in the Senate chambers so this role usually falls to the president pro temp, but still if the VP wants to they can control debate–putting them in charge.
It’s a thread, not a library shelf.
Some Ronald Reagan ones:
- “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do”.
- “Facts are stupid thing”.
- “Fascism was the basis for the New Deal”.
And I seem to remember during a campaign Reagan giving a sentimental statement about a ship leaving New York harbor and sailing off into the sunset – except that New York harbor faces east, while sunsets are seen to the west.
And Al Gore once referring to a leopard changing its stripes.
Shouldn’t we distinguish between someone stumbling over his tongue and someone actually believing something stupid? Yes, Obama referred to 57 states, but does anyone think he ever believed there were that many states? Similarly, I doubt Gerald Ford actually believed that Poland wasn’t under the thumb of the Soviet Union.
True examples of ignorance among public figures include Dan Quayle’s explanation about the possibility of life on Mars (we know there are canals, which means there must be water, which means there must be air, which means the planet can support life) and Reagan’s statement that nuclear missiles can be recalled once launched.
Well, then you could toss in the original Revolutionary War, too.
But it is arguable if Great Britain in 1776 or 1812 was what we would consider a ‘democracy’. Technically, they were a Monarchy, and they were a long, long way away from the “one person, one vote” standard.
They still are a monarchy.
And whats Great Britain? In 1812, it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Further discussion of the Obama slip here: Obama: "America has never fought a war against a democracy." - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Exactly. Though there is no way to clearly define the exact point when something goes from being a slip-up to being a full on false belief, what I’m looking for is a little more than some of the (although entertaining) references have offered. You’d have a hard case to make if you wanted to argue that Obama really didn’t know how many states there are in the union, while, say, Haig’s claim that he was in charge seems to show a more substantial misunderstanding of our civic framework. Even clearer still, seems to be Michelle Bachmann’s (like shooting fish in a barrel) claims pertaining to the census and what the Consitution requires of her.
Regarding history, I would say that claims that “most” signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen and the claim that Washington had a field manual of prayers are pretty clear examples (I promise I’m not intentionally picking on Republicans).
I would like to see a reliable cite for the Quayle quote.
Reagan did not say that nuclear missiles could be recalled. He said that planes and submarines used to launch nuclear weapons could be recalled, which is true. Fritz Mondale is the one who said
More recent examples might include Algore saying that the only problem with geothermal energy was the the earth’s core temperature was millions of degrees, and that this melted drills, and that this problem had been solved. (Cite). He also mentioned that he believed the arctic ice cap was going to melt completely in the next five to seven years. (cite). Or our current VP talking about how FDR went on TV to talk about the stock market crash (cite).
Regards,
Shodan
The relationship between this and civics/history is what?
I don’t know what you consider reliable. Here is snopes on what Quayle did and didn’t say. It includes the following in a list of accurate quotations:
Wikipedia has the same quote on Quayle’s bio page. I realize that these aren’t the same as contemporary news accounts, but generally snopes gets things right, and I can’t find any anyone disputing the quote on Wikipedia.
As for Reagan and recalling nuclear missiles, my memory is that he said the missiles themselves could be recalled. This caused an uproar, which led to an explanation from the White House that he meant to say that the submarines and airplanes carrying nuclear weapons could be recalled. It could have been a mis-statement on his part, so I withdraw my accusation that he made the statement out of ignorance.
Joe Biden explaining in an interview with CBS how Franklin Roosevelt went on television to explain to the country what happened to cause the 1929 stock market crash. At the time, FDR was over three years away from being elected President and television was still in the experimental phase.
One of the most frustrating was the ubiquitous ignorance on the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam by members of Congress (both D & R) and members of the Bush Administration (all R) for years after the war, or the knowledge as to which Middle Eastern nations were which. This is trivial information to know perhaps when you’re not at war with two different Islamic countries and maintaining delicate relationships with many others, but it’s rather critical information to know when you are; it would be akin to coordinating a war with the Irish and not knowing the differences between Catholics and Protestants.
In The Wordy Shipmates author Sarah Vowell devotes considerable length to the use of the City on a Hill speech by Reagan and several others who either had no knowledge of or chose to ignore its full context and meaning. The original speech is far less a “the eyes of the world are upon us because we are a beacon” source of jingoist pride than a challenge and an acknowledgement of awesome (in the Elizabethan sense) responsibility and obligation.
Granted I was only 6 years old at the time, but I don’t recall Ford ever clarifying/retracting his statement about Poland…
Was he thinking of Austria?
What was he actually talking about?
Should note: the title of Winthrop’s speech is not City on a Hill but A Model of Christian Charity. It is much concerned with said charity, yet in the 20th century was most often associated with/quoted by politicians intent on cutting off charitable fundings.
Simplification of history is seemingly a requirement for public office. “The Founding Fathers were all Men of Faith” or “The Founding Fathers were Deists”- both of which are used by people arguing for and against state religious practices- and neither is really true; the Founding Fathers were all over the map in the practices from extremely religious to atheist. The most common involve the Civil War being fought to end slavery (the preservation of slavery was certainly the major catalyst from the southern side but there were many others, which is why the institution lasted for centuries before a war occurred), or acting as if Rosa Parks was both the Virgin Mother and the Earthly Incarnation of the Civil Rights movement and MLK was her Prophet (a gross simplification that disregards many individuals who came before or lived contemporaneous with her whose actions were at least as responsible for the movement, which was also helped along by such impersonal factors as World War II swelling the black middle class and the rise of television that broadcast information instantly across the country and a thousand other factors), or the notion of school prayer being linked to greater virtue among the masses. You rarely hear a speech referencing a historical event that doesn’t seem to regard it as a bite sized reduction whose accuracy ranges from non-existent to partial at most.